AGG Talks: Background Screening - What is FCRA Preemption, and Why Should You Care?
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 298: Listen and Learn -- The Dormant Commerce Clause
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 108: Listen and Learn -- The Commerce Clause
Podcast: South Dakota v. Wayfair
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order on January 23, 2025, which provisionally reinstates the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) while a legal challenge to it continues. This brief order, which stayed an injunction against the...more
Few would argue that the federal government does not have a legitimate interest in preventing, detecting, and punishing tax fraud, money laundering, and other financial crimes. Likewise, I imagine few would disagree with the...more
On December 26, 2024, a merits panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated a nationwide injunction against enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that had been entered by the United States...more
A Nebraska tribe’s tobacco businesses are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in HCI Distribution Inc., et al. v. Michael T. Hilgers, et al. This decision concluded that the...more
In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.,[1] the U.S. Supreme Court clarified last year that states can require foreign entities to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition for doing business within their borders. ...more
On March 1, 2024 in the case of National Small Business United v. Yellen 5:22-cv-01448-LCB the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama declared the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) unconstitutional stating...more
One of the most interesting aspects of marijuana law and policy in the U.S. is its tendency to strike at our most foundational democratic principles. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress...more
When EPA and the Corps of Engineers published their tenth attempt to determine the reach of the Federal Clean Water Act, I said the only question remaining was how many of the States and NGOs who challenged EPA's and the...more
Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended to the Drug Enforcement Administration that cannabis be rescheduled on the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) from a I to a III. At the same time, the SAFER...more
A significant number of states prohibit or restrict the arbitration of disputes between an insurer and its policyholder and/or preclude the inclusion of arbitral provisions in insurance policies.The McCarran-Ferguson Act...more
The test for personal jurisdiction, which asks whether a defendant can be compelled to litigate in a particular state, has been extensively developed over the past several decades, and notably refined in the last fifteen...more
The US Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co holding that a Pennsylvania statute requiring corporations to "consent" to suit in Pennsylvania courts in order to register to do...more
On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court held in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., No. 21-1168, 2023 WL 4187749, that Norfolk Southern submitted to the state of Pennsylvania’s general jurisdiction (that is, being...more
Here at Foley, we routinely represent companies, whether manufacturers, distributors, service providers, or others that are, by necessity, registered to do business in most or all of the fifty states. For years, the U.S....more
Tag, You’re It! SCOTUS Ruling Against Norfolk Southern Extends Reach of Personal Jurisdiction Upon Corporate Defendants - A plurality of the United States Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that will likely permit...more
Late last month the Supreme Court of the United States opened the door to a potential sea change in personal jurisdiction over corporate entities. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, the Court held that any...more
In its June 27, 2023, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporate defendant can be sued in Pennsylvania — regardless of whether the cause of action accrues in Pennsylvania or...more
The United States Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., finding Pennsylvania’s consent to jurisdiction by corporate registration unconstitutional in a 5-4...more
A recent (and surprising) ruling of the United States Supreme Court may allow businesses to be sued in states in which they have little connection. The United States Supreme Court, split 5-4 (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor...more
The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.. concerned the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania statute providing that registering to do business in the state constitutes a sufficient basis...more
Last week the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of state laws requiring businesses to consent to lawsuits in the state after registering with state authorities to conduct business there. In Mallory v. Norfolk...more
A recent United States Supreme Court decision on the scope of personal jurisdiction, i.e., a court’s authority to exercise jurisdiction over a particular party, could potentially have lasting impacts on the way states decide...more
Last week, amid its headline-generating decisions on affirmative action, religious accommodations in the workplace, and LGBTQ rights, the Supreme Court of the United States also issued its decision in Mallory v. Norfolk...more
In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., Robert Mallory (a Virginia resident) sued his former employer, Norfolk Southern (a Virginia-based railroad), over his alleged exposure to toxic chemicals while working for Norfolk...more
The US Supreme Court has held that companies can be forced, as a condition of doing business in a state, to agree to be sued in that state’s courts — even if the lawsuit has nothing to do with that state. In its June 27,...more